|
|
Post by The-Rock on Apr 11, 2017 1:10:14 GMT -5
Has a gimmick ever transferred between companies before? I know WWE Stopped WCW from using The Prisoner Gimmick when Nailz briefly had a stint in WCW since it infringed on WWE's Nailz gimmick hulkamania from wwf to wcw ultimate warrior as warrior to wcw 'macho man' randy savage from wwf to wcw public enemy from ecw to wwf shane douglas as the franchise from ecw to wcw raven from ecw to wcw to ecw to wwf 'nature boy' ric flair from wcw to wwf back to wcw back to wwf ryno from ecw to wwf justin credible from ecw to wwf 'ravishing' rick rude from nwa to wwf to wcw to ecw to wwf i could go on... The one that always stuck out to me was how Rhino became Rhyno when he went from ECW to WWF. The Dudleys spelled their first names different in ECW. A lot of post attitude era stuff in terms of gimmicks just wasn't capable of being enforced because a lot of the gimmicks were just normal people (as opposed to being like a cartoonish character) and you can't prevent someone from earning a living in their chosen profession. For instance with a guy like Christian (who used the same gear and look and everything)...you can't do anything since he doesn't really have any trade dress regarding his character that can be attributed to WWE. However, with wrestlers like the Dudleys...you've got the well known trade dress of wearing came, putting people through tables, etc. etc. It's also worth mentioning that there are 2 types of trademarks...(1) a common law trademark that attaches to something to instant you used it in commerce and (2) a registered trademark which needs to be filed for with the USPTO and approved by an examining trademark attorney. Just because you file an application for a registered trademark doesn't mean that it will be granted. Now the reason why people want registered trademarks is because if something gets litigated, the damages automatically skyrocket (you get statutory damages and punitive damages, and the damages automatically multiple) if it is ultimately ruled that a registered trademark is infringed. |
|
|
|
Post by The-Rock on Apr 11, 2017 1:24:20 GMT -5
The Hardys actually could really benefit from this gimmick. I feel that if they don't get it, they'll end up with really nothing to do like the Dudleys did during their last run. It all depends on what WWE's intent was in bringing the Hardy's back. The dudley's were purely brought back to put over and legitimize the younger teams. While in real sports, old aging start are brought in to try and extract what value still remains in the player....in wrestling old aging starts are brought in to pay it forward to the new guys and help them get over by beating an established character. The dudley's were never really seen as highly touted talent in WWE's eyes...they experimented with a terrible singles run for each guy in 2002 and they were back teaming together about 6 months later. WWE had the chance to resign them and keep them on board in 2005, but they released them and waited almost a decade to bring them back. With the Hardy's the WWE desperately wanted to retain Jeff in 2009, but he wanted time off...then he got busted by the feds...and WWE wanted absolutely nothing to do with Jeff after that for a while. The hardy's almost suffered the exact same fate as the Dudley's in the early 00s...Jeff was fired for substance abuse, Matt Hardy was fired under similar circumstances as the dudleys...but eventually was brought back because of the Edge/Lita incident. Then Jeff went to TNA, his stock kind of raised and it seemed like he cleaned himself up...so WWE brought him back since he was still young enough to become a bankable star and the audience was still relatively the same from when he had previously been employed. Now both Hardy's are well into their 40s and the WWE is focused on building guys who can be marketable for the next 5-10 years...not the next 1-2. Not to mention the audience isn't probably that similar to what is was the last time the Hardy's were in WWE. However, when it comes to WWE you really can never tell what they're going to do...I mean they just made a 50 year old guy who hadn't been with them for almost 15 years and can barely wrestle their world champion. If I was in charge I'd let Jeff Hardy be the Jeff Hardy of 2009...and Matt hardy be broken Matt Hardy. That's how you get the most out of those guys. But at the same time you need to tell a story |
|
|
|
Post by IRS on Apr 11, 2017 2:00:05 GMT -5
The Hardys actually could really benefit from this gimmick. I feel that if they don't get it, they'll end up with really nothing to do like the Dudleys did during their last run. It all depends on what WWE's intent was in bringing the Hardy's back. The dudley's were purely brought back to put over and legitimize the younger teams. While in real sports, old aging start are brought in to try and extract what value still remains in the player....in wrestling old aging starts are brought in to pay it forward to the new guys and help them get over by beating an established character. The dudley's were never really seen as highly touted talent in WWE's eyes...they experimented with a terrible singles run for each guy in 2002 and they were back teaming together about 6 months later. WWE had the chance to resign them and keep them on board in 2005, but they released them and waited almost a decade to bring them back. With the Hardy's the WWE desperately wanted to retain Jeff in 2009, but he wanted time off...then he got busted by the feds...and WWE wanted absolutely nothing to do with Jeff after that for a while. The hardy's almost suffered the exact same fate as the Dudley's in the early 00s...Jeff was fired for substance abuse, Matt Hardy was fired under similar circumstances as the dudleys...but eventually was brought back because of the Edge/Lita incident. Then Jeff went to TNA, his stock kind of raised and it seemed like he cleaned himself up...so WWE brought him back since he was still young enough to become a bankable star and the audience was still relatively the same from when he had previously been employed. Now both Hardy's are well into their 40s and the WWE is focused on building guys who can be marketable for the next 5-10 years...not the next 1-2. Not to mention the audience isn't probably that similar to what is was the last time the Hardy's were in WWE. However, when it comes to WWE you really can never tell what they're going to do...I mean they just made a 50 year old guy who hadn't been with them for almost 15 years and can barely wrestle their world champion. If I was in charge I'd let Jeff Hardy be the Jeff Hardy of 2009...and Matt hardy be broken Matt Hardy. That's how you get the most out of those guys. But at the same time you need to tell a story Err... neither Hardy is "well into their 40s". Matt is 42 and Jeff is 39 - the same age as Cena and AJ. |
|
Mr Wrestling Jr.
Main Eventer
Joined on: Sept 6, 2010 7:07:35 GMT -5
Posts: 3,410
|
Post by Mr Wrestling Jr. on Apr 11, 2017 4:56:25 GMT -5
Now both Hardy's are well into their 40s and the WWE is focused on building guys who can be marketable for the next 5-10 years...not the next 1-2. Err... neither Hardy is "well into their 40s". Matt is 42 and Jeff is 39 - the same age as Cena and AJ. If they both stay healthy, no major injuries and no relapsing back onto anything, they could get a good 3 - 5 years out of Matt. And Jeff if he wants to continue after Matt goes home to be with Queen Rebecca and King Maxel and whatever the second son will be named, they could get 4 - 6 years put of him. Also "The Second Son of BROKEN Matt Hardy? That's a quality gimmick right there. |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Apr 11, 2017 6:34:20 GMT -5
6 posts in a row!
|
|
|
|
Post by The Future on Apr 11, 2017 6:45:03 GMT -5
It's only a matter of time till we see a version of the Broken gimmick in WWE. I'm sure once Vince heard those "Delete" chants at WM the money signs flashed before his eyes. While common logic would dictate this to be the case, you forget that Vince McMahon doesn't like anything that he himself didn't come up with. Summer of Punk, Balor's paint, The Club, Goldberg and Nakamura would like to disagree. . . |
|
